alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4379 — Remondis/Cronimet/Alfa Acciai/TSR Group)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 233/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

----
# sec5_balsh_2021

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2021-20	&"Arial,Bold"&10V BS - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10August 2021
North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

MEETING OF NAIMA WITH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Hilton Garden Inn Thursday

, December 6 , 2012

Kansas City, Kansas 9:00 AM

– 12:00 PM (Central)

..................................................................................................................... AGENDA

1. Review of NAIMA’s Antitrust Guidelines

– A. Crane (Attachment)

2. Introductions

3. Meeting Overview

4. Presentation O n Furnace Types

a. Discussion O n Chrome C ontent of R efractories

b. Graphics I llustrate W hy Hex C hrome E missions A re L imited T o O nly O ne F urnace

T ype

c. Temperature of F urnace I s R elevant F actor

• Reference T o Dr. Brosnan

5. Modeling & Rem odeling Results

a. Majority of F urnaces D o N ot M eet R isk T hreshold

b. Remodeling R esults S how E ven G reater R eduction I n N umber of F urnaces W ith

R elevant R isk

c. Remainder C ould B e A ddressed T hrough R ecommendations S et F orth I n NAIMA’s

P roposal

6. Presentation of NAIMA’s Proposal

7. Discussion W ith EPA About Timing

8. Next Steps

9. Adjournment
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-18 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 4

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 60 Att. 17

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-18 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-18 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 60-18 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 4 of 4
Before the First Division,

June 29, 1943

No. 48458.

#### Protests 58495-K, etc., of Butler Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Case No. 9,017.

#### MANDEVILLE et al. v. WASHINGTON.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 4.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1801.

Practice at Law —Writ op Inquiry — Plain tiffs’ Oath.

On a writ of inquiry the plaintiff’s oath may be given in evidence of the amount of his claim.

On writ of inquiry. [Suit by Mandeville & Jamieson against Nathaniel Washington.]

THE COURT

admitted an account supported by the plaintiffs’ affidavit to be given in evidence to the jury, it having been stated *593by some of the bar and admitted by all, that such has been the practice in the district courts of the commonwealth of Virginia.
No. 58487.

protests 215844-K and 219160-K (New York).

#### Vitelli Elvea Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the facts and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
S. 3946 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1106 Main 

Street in Bastrop, Texas, as the ‘‘Sergeant Major Billy D. Waugh Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SERGEANT MAJOR BILLY D. WAUGH POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 1106 Main Street in Bastrop, Texas, shall be 

known and designated as the ‘‘Sergeant Major Billy D. Waugh 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Sergeant Major Billy D. Waugh Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with the  Annual  Report  of The Art  Boutique,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I,
Ronald Lui, CEO of the company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC Section  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of
                operations of the Company.


                                         /s/ Ronald Lui
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Ronald Lui, CEO - CFO

Dated:  April 19, 2005
# 98

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-10	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 4/23/19

# 99

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-10	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT&K01+000 VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 4/23/19
EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-53385) pertaining to the Corus Bankshares, Inc. Commission Program
for Commercial Loan Officers, of our reports dated February 24, 2006, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Corus Bankshares, Inc.,
Corus Bankshares, Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Corus Bankshares, Inc., incorporated by reference in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-77481) pertaining to the Corus Bankshares, Inc. 1999 Stock
Option Plan, of our reports dated February 24, 2006, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Corus Bankshares, Inc., Corus Bankshares,
Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of Corus Bankshares, Inc., incorporated by reference in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

                                                     /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 10, 2006
# Main

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2018-05	&"Arial,Bold"DRAFT VI RBS - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handouts 04/26/2018
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

George Bridgette,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0436 DFL PAN P

vs.

Findings and Recommendations

D. Runnels, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff, a prisoner without counsel seeking damages and

injunctive relief for civil rights violations, moves for a

temporary restraining order. 

A temporary restraining order may be granted without notice

to a defendant only if it clearly appears from specific facts

shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that the

applicant will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or

damage before the defendant can be heard in opposition and the

applicant submits a written certification of the efforts, if any, 

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 30 Filed 05/27/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

he has made to give notice and the reasons supporting his claim

that notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 

Plaintiff has not submitted a written certification of the

efforts, if any, he has made to notify defendants of his request

and he has not submitted reasons in support of a claim notice

should not be required. 

Therefore, I recommend that plaintiff’s November 10, 2004,

motion for a temporary restraining order be denied.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Within 20 days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 

The district judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings

and recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: May 26, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00436-DFL-EFB Document 30 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 1 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 2 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 3 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 4 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 5 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 6 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 7 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 8 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 9 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 10 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 11 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 12 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 13 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 14 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 15 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 16 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 17 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 18 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 19 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 20 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 21 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 22 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 23 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 24 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 25 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 26 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 27 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 28 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 29 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 30 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 31 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 32 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 33 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 34 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 35 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 36 of 37
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1-3 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 37 of 37
Exhibit 7

Letter from Charles M. Jones, Solvay Solexis, Inc.,

to Mike James, EPA (Feb. 15, 2008)

Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 1
Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 2
Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 3
Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 4
Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 5
Exhibit 8

Letter from Chuck Jones, Solvay Solexis, Inc.,

to Mike James, EPA (Mar. 4, 2008)

Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 1
Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 2
Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 3
Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 4
Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 5
Exhibit 9

Non-Objection Notice from Ross Brennan, EPA,

to Charles Jones, Solvay Solexis, Inc., and Don Magid,

Solvay Fluorides, LLC, concerning transfer dated Feb. 15, 2008

Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 1
Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 2
Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 3
Exhibit 10

Non-Objection Notice from Ross Brennan, EPA,

to Charles Jones, Solvay Solexis, Inc., and Don Magid,

Solvay Fluorides, LLC, concerning transfer dated Mar. 5, 2008

Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 1
Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 2
Case: 10-1347 Document: 1287346 Filed: 01/11/2011 Page: 3
No. 52923.

#### Caron Spinning Company *v.*United States,

protest 134039-K/1329 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

The evidence before the court established that the customs weigher of the goods proceeded to weigh the wool through the usual and customary processes, weighing each and every bale in the shipment. The importer, on the other hand, failed to produce satisfactory evidence of the net weight of the goods at the time of landing. The preponderance of evidence favored the methods of obtaining the weights reported by the customs weigher and nothing appeared of record to establish that such were not the weights to be used as the basis of levying duty. The protest was therefore overruled.
Part 1, Section V: USSGL Crosswalks to Standard 

External Reports

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2022 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map 

USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with current reporting guidance from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), and the 

Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service).

Each report crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or 

column on the reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This 

subsidiary information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional 

information on attributes.

All crosswalks require pre-closing USSGL account balances.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by 

OMB and Fiscal Service:

Section V Page Number

Balance Sheet (BS) V BS - 1

Statement of Net Cost (SNC) V SNC - 1

Statement of Changes in Net Position (SCNP) V SCNP - 1

Statement of Custodial Activity (SCA) V SCA - 1

Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) V SBR - 1

SF 133 and Schedule P: Report on Budget Execution 

and Budgetary Resources and Budget Program and 

Financing Schedule

V SF 133/Sch P - 1

Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of I.D. Systems,
Inc. on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-87973, 333-134142, 333-134138 and
333-144709) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-116144) of our report dated March 29, 2011
with respect to our audits of the consolidated balance sheets of I.D.
Systems, Inc. as of December 31, 2009 and 2010, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders equity, cash flows and
schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2010, which reports appear in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K
of I.D. Systems, Inc. Our report on
the consolidated financial statements includes an explanatory paragraph
regarding the Companys adoption of accounting guidance related to business
combinations effective for business combinations entered into  on or
after January 1, 2009.

We also
consent to the reference to our firm under the heading Experts in the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-116144).

/s/
EisnerAmper LLP

New York, New
York


March 29, 2011


---
No. 49071.

Suit 4435.

#### United *States*v. *D. H. Armaghanian et al.*

reversed November 1, 1943. C. A. D. 263.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

muiteb ~tate~ QCourt of ~peaI~

for tbe jfeberaI QCircuit

MARCO ANTONIO GALLO-RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee,

2012-5136

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal

Claims in case no. 11-CV-0782, Judge George W. Miller.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Marco Antonio Gallo-Rodriguez moves for an extension of time to file his informal brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

Case: 12-5136 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 10/04/2012
MARCO GALLO-RODRIGUEZ V. US 2

The motion is granted. The appellant's brief is due

within 30 days of the date of filing of this order.

FOR THE COURT

OCT 04 2012

Date

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Stacey K. Grigsby, Esq.

Marco Antonio Gallo-Rodriguez, (Informal briefform

enclosed)

s27

Case: 12-5136 Document: 3 Page: 2 Filed: 10/04/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CIVIL ACTION

: NO. 10-5942

v. :

: CRIMINAL ACTION

NATHANIEL HURT : NO. 05-431

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2011, upon careful and independent

consideration of the Motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct the Sentence, the response thereto, and after review of the Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart anddefendant’s Motion

Requesting Permission to Amend a Pending Section 2255 (Document 74) deemed to be

Objections to the Report and Recommendation, it is ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2. The Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Sentence is DENIED.

3. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

Berle M. Schiller, J.

Case 2:05-cr-00431-BMS Document 75 Filed 11/29/11 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DIANNE M. FRIEND

: CIVIL ACTION

:

vs. :

: NO. 02-CV-4464

SUBURBAN WOODS NURSING HOME,

LLC, ET AL.

O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: This 18th day of September, 2002, it having been

reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled and upon Order

of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of

this Court (effective January 1, 1970), it is

ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to

agreement of counsel without costs.

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court

BY: 

Patricia A. Callahan 

 Deputy Clerk to

Hon. Berle M. Schiller

Civ 2 (7/95)

41(b).frm

Case 2:02-cv-04464-BMS Document 7 Filed 09/18/2002 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 14,428.

#### UNITED STATES v. ALEXANDER et al.

[4 Cranch. C. C. 311.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1833.

Banks — Expiration of Charter — Pleading in Equity — Joinder.

1. If the charter of a bank, indebted to the United States, expires, the United States have no remedy against the debtors of the bank, if there were no actual assignment to the United States before the expiration of the charter.

2. Several defendants, who have no connection with each other in interest, in estate, or in contract, and against whom, jointly, the plaintiffs have no causo ot suit either at law or in equity, cannot be joined ir. one bill.

This was a bill in equity, brought by the United States against [Amos Alexander and others] the debtors of the Franklin Bank, about three years after the expiration of the charter of the bank, charging that the directors had agreed to assign the effects of the bank to the United States, to whom it was indebted.

The defendants demurred to the bill because it appeared, upon its face, that the charter had expired, and the defendants were, therefore, not debtors of the bank at the time of filing the bill; and also because it joined parties as defendants who had no joint interest, &c.

Mr. Taylor, for defendants,

as to the joining of several defendants, cited 1 Har. Ch. Prac. pp. 289, 406, § 8; Davoue v. Fanning, 4 Johns. Ch. 199; Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. 139; 1 Har. Ch. Prac. 93; and as to the expiration of the charter, 1 Bl. Comm, c. 18, last page.

CRANCH, Chief Judge

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent).

We think the demurrers in this case must be supported:

1. Because, by the plaintiff’s bill, it appears that the charter of the bank expired in 1822, and the bill was not filed until 1825; so that the defendants were not indebted to the bank at the time of filing the bill.

2. Because the bill joins several defendants who have no connection with each other in interest, in estate, or in contract, and against whom, jointly, the plaintiffs have no cause of suit either at law or in equity.

3. Because the bill does not show an assignment of the debts, or any agreement to assign, with the assent of the defendants.

4.Because there is no representative of the bank before the court to controvert the assignment.

We are of opinion, therefore, that the bill ought to be dismissed as to the defendants who have demurred.
2004 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-19-2004

Skretvedt v. EI DuPont de Nemours

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 03-2805

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Skretvedt v. EI DuPont de Nemours" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 689.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/689
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

ORRIN T. SKRETVEDT, )

Appellant, )

) No. 03-2805

v. )

)

E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, )

a Delaware Corporation; PENSION RET. )

PLAN; HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL-SURGICAL )

PLAN; DENTAL ASSISTANCE PLAN; NON- )

CONTRIBUTORY GROUP LIFE INSURANCE PLAN; )

TOTAL AND PERMANENT DISABILITY INCOME )

PLAN; SAVINGS PLAN; TAX REFORM ACT STOCK )

OWNERSHIP PLAN; SHORT TERM DISABILITY PLAN )

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

Civil Action No. 98-cv-00061

Magistrate Judge: Honorable Mary P. Thynge

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

April 20, 2004

 

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, GARTH and BRIGHT*, Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 23, 2004)

 

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

The above entitled Opinion be and the same is hereby amended in the following

respect:

WHEREAS on page 2 and page 4 of the typescript Not Precedential Opinion the
 term $226,000 appears, there shall be substituted for that term the term $309,217.

 /s/ Leonard I. Garth, Circuit Judge 

Dated: May 19, 2004

CLW/cc: John M. Stull, Esq

 Raymond M. Ripple, Esq.

____________________________

*Honorable Myron H. Bright, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,

sitting by designation.